Automated Summary
Key Facts
The tribunal revoked an HMO declaration issued by West Northamptonshire Council on April 8, 2022, for the MK Hotel in Milton Keynes. The council had inspected the property on March 29, 2022, and declared it an HMO based on the occupation of asylum seekers. Shires Investments Limited, the property owner, appealed the declaration on May 9, 2022, and the hearing occurred on October 18, 2022. The tribunal found the council failed to establish that the asylum seekers occupied the hotel as their 'only or main residence' under section 254(2)(c) of the Housing Act 2004, as the occupants were provided temporary support under section 98 of the Immigration and Asylum Act 1999. The council was ordered to reimburse the applicant's £300 tribunal fees due to their hasty decision.
Issues
The tribunal determined whether the council correctly issued an HMO declaration for a hotel housing asylum seekers. The central issue was whether the asylum seekers occupied the property as their 'only or main residence' under Section 254(2)(c) of the 2004 Act. The applicant argued that temporary support under Section 98 of the 1999 Act (contrary to Section 95) negated the residency requirement. The tribunal found the council failed to establish that the occupants met the residency test, requiring more than transient occupation, and revoked the declaration.
Holdings
- The tribunal revoked the HMO declaration because the council failed to establish that the asylum seekers occupied the hotel as their main residence under section 254(2)(c) of the Housing Act 2004. The tribunal emphasized that 'residence' requires permanence and continuity, not just temporary occupation. The new evidence from Finefair Limited clarified that the asylum seekers were under section 98, which provides temporary support until the Secretary of State determines eligibility under section 95. Since the Licensing and Management Regulations 2006 only apply to section 95, the council's declaration was invalid. The hotel's contract also specified emergency short-term accommodation, further supporting the lack of permanence required for an HMO.
- The tribunal determined that the temporary nature of the asylum seekers' accommodation under section 98 of the 1999 Act, as temporary support, does not meet the 'residence' criteria in section 254(2)(c). The Hotel Booking Contract's reference to emergency short-term use reinforced this conclusion, leading to the revocation of the HMO declaration.
Remedies
- The tribunal revokes the HMO declaration served under s255 of the Housing Act 2004 on 8 April 2022. This decision is based on the failure of the council to establish that the asylum seekers occupied the property as their only or main residence.
- The tribunal orders the respondent to pay the applicant £300 in application and hearing fees under rule 13(2) of the 2013 Rules, with payment due by 30 November 2022. This reimbursement is awarded due to the council's failure to properly assess the legal requirements before issuing the HMO declaration.
Legal Principles
The tribunal applied the purposive approach to interpret the statutory requirement of 'residence' under section 254(2)(c) of the Housing Act 2004, emphasizing that mere occupation without a degree of permanence does not satisfy the 'residence' test. This interpretation considered the temporary nature of asylum seekers' accommodation under section 98 of the Immigration and Asylum Act 1999, distinguishing it from the more permanent status required under section 95.
Precedent Name
- Fox v Stirk
- Herefordshire Council v Martin Rohde
Cited Statute
- Tribunal Procedure (first-tier Tribunal) (Property Chamber) Rules 2013
- Housing Act 2004
- Licensing and Management of Houses in Multiple Occupation and Other Houses (Miscellaneous Provisions) (England) Regulations 2006
- Immigration and Asylum Act 1999
Judge Name
Judge Ruth Wayte
Passage Text
- 20. As stated above, section 98 accommodation is defined in the 1999 Act as 'temporary support'. The tribunal also notes that the Hotel Booking Contract included in the council's bundle refers to the permitted use as the 'provision of emergency short-term accommodation to the Guests'. In those circumstances the tribunal is satisfied that the use of the hotel under that contract did not provide the degree of permanence required for the occupants to pass the test in section 254(2)(c) and that the new evidence provides further confirmation that the test was not met at the time the declaration was issued or currently.
- 18. The tribunal agrees with the applicant that the council have failed to establish that the asylum seekers were occupying the hotel as their only or main residence. In particular, the tribunal agrees that 'residence' requires more than mere occupation.